To read the G+T Boards

[dashoflime]

My DS is 4 months and very average.

Its just so oddly compelling and I don't know why.

IQ is not a great measure of intelligence.

Oh, got a better one?

LeBFG: OK, I see what you mean now. To be honest, I do actually see the relevence of G+T to your friends school.

The idea might have been to avoid potentially very able pupils slipping through the net because they were part of a cohort towards whom there are very low expectations. If they can show promise against the odds, in a deprived environment, what else might they be capable of IYSWIM?

It does beg the question, why make a special case of just those children and not try to improve outcomes for all but that comes back to the elitism that's built into a lot of ideas about inherant abilites.

RedHelenB: Agree that IQ is a flawed measure of intelligence. It is known to be culturally subjective for example.

LeBFG: there might not be any objective test. Or any clear idea of what is being tested for, for that matter!

It's an inherently amusing board because, in amongst the genuine posters there are three groups of giggle-inducing posters:
1 - posters whose child is achieving around average in school, the only possible explanation for which is the school failing to recognise they are gifted.
2 - posters who are determined no child but their own is gifted. So new poster describes their 2 year-old writing in iambic pentameter and criticising the subtitles on a Swedish drama and wonders if they may be gifted. 15 other posters suggest this is a bit above average, bright even, but nothing special and certainly not gifted.
3 - posters determined to stealth boast by saying how terribly challenging it all is and if the rest of us only knew what it was like to have a child achieve 5A in year 6, we wouldn't be jealous. These posters have a MN persona entirely different to their real personality, because in real life they would apparently never, ever mention that their child is bright, but on MN they mention it every other post.
It must make the forum a bit useless for the genuine issue posters.

SolomanDaisy: Yes!!! That's it! That's what I keep coming back for

@ SolomonDaisy.

How true!

As another poster points out, there are two sorts of G&T: those who are really off-the-scale odd - years ahead for maths or english let's say - and others who are only really bright relative to their cohort.

The G&T (I always think of gin & tonic) label to me and lots of people I know implies the former when it's meant to mean, particularly to teachers and schools, the latter. I agree, dash, that it's useful to ID the brightest kids in a year - they are already IDed because they're in the top set - so is it really helpful to label them? They don't feel the need to label the dimmest kids in the year.

Wrt IQ tests. Plenty of people criticise but very few propose alternatives. We need some kind of cognitive correlate in order to measure how much someone meets their potential. This was in fact used creatively in one school I worked in - a few pupils were IDed in key subjects as working at levels way below what their CAT scores indicated even though they were good average achievers.

we dont have G n T register in scotland I do read the section sometimes and go

Me too jingleallthejay. I'd never heard of it until I joined MN.

Solomon - this continues way after their DC leave school. They move onto other boards and 'accidentally' drop into conversation how DD went to Oxford you know, two years ahead blah, blah. Always only tangentially related to the thread of course.

Some are also competitive with their off-spring. 'When I was her age, I was differentiating equations AND I only went to a comp'.....

Mind you, a poster once pointed out that there are a lot threads about 2/3yo geniuses (geneii?) but they peter out at older ages suggesting a lot just do end up developing more like average.

LeBFG: Good point about G+T at school just meaning the top of that particular school. I think some people do misunderstand and get carried away

Also agree it serves no purpose for teachers to put the top achievers on a list.

When G+T register was first set up, wasn't it meant to catch pupils that have high potential but not necessarily high achievement? It sounds like the creative school you worked at was using it in that spirit. From the G+T boards it does seem like the exception rather than the rule though.

"I do love it when someone says 'he sounds lovely but not exceptional-just enjoy him' (yet are themselves doing Japanese, have theirs enrolled in the Royal society of Chemists/have an algebra coach,are doing 'orchestra' (not just one instrument- the whole fucking orchestra at grade 8) because theirs is sooooo gifted..."

Yes!! "Just enjoy him" is like a stealth put down on G+T isn't it?
Like in celebrity magazines when someone is praised for "enjoying their new curvy figure"

Just enjoy him" is like a stealth put down on G+T isn't it?

yes they may as well say well at least YOU love him

I think the teacher doing it had taken the idea from the G&T push, yes. But he just applied it to all abilities and IDed over- as well as underachievers. In reality of course, it didn't really add anything new - nearly all these underachievers were already known by the staff and had associated home issues explaining the problem. It was a nice idea though. I like rationality at work .

I suppose at least it confirmed that the teachers knew the cohort well and weren't missing anything

Then OFSTED could confirm that it had been confirmed that teachers weren't missing anything.

Then MPs could announce they could confirm that OFSTED could confirm....

Does it come across how much I hated Blair's school meddling??? Mind you, it seems the new lot are doing a great job meddling too so pleased to be out of it all actually .

Where is it? Wouldn't mind having a nose learning something new

LeBFG: OK, I see what you mean. Sounds rubbish.